Not exactly. Everyone might want to reconsider ocean-front property, according to a group of researchers from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. In a paper recently published in Nature Climate Change, the team presents results from simulations showing that, while reducing emissions can stabilize global temperatures, sea levels will continue to rise for centuries.

Sea levels rising with increasing temperature makes sense. But why would this continue if the surface stops getting hotter? Well, the answer is a bit complicated, and there are multiple factors. According to the authors, the biggest contribution is actually from thermal expansion of sea water. Warm water at the surface slowly mixes downward, causing more water to heat up. It then takes a while for oceans to fully equilibrate to atmospheric conditions. As the temperature continues to rise, sea water expands—causing the sea level to rise. This continues even when the surface temperature stops increasing or begins to drop.

In order to get an idea of how much the sea levels might rise, the researchers took the well-known Community Climate System Model and analyzed a few climate change mitigation scenarios. This model predicts climate change and its effects by simulating the atmosphere and ocean as well as land and sea ice. The scenarios range from doing nearly nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions—which would result in warming of nearly five degrees C by the end of the century—to actually pulling enough carbon dioxide out of the air (negative net emissions) to begin cooling the planet by the end of the century. In between, the less-aggressive scenario has us stabilizing around three degrees C above pre-industrial levels by 2200.

According to the simulation results, even in the best-case scenario, sea levels will still be rising for another three hundred years.

Melting ice sheets and glaciers would also contribute to the sea level rise, but this is trickier to predict. In particular, we don't really know the physics of ice-sheet stability, although some empirical models exist. The authors used one of these, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s fourth assessment report (AR4), to estimate this contribution.

Taking contributions from glaciers and ice sheets into account (which the authors admit is highly uncertain) nearly doubles the predicted sea level rise in each scenario. Due to the uncertainties in these calculations, the actual numbers aren’t necessarily good quantitative predictions. However, limiting considerations to thermal expansion just gives a low estimate, since ice would definitely contribute to rising sea levels.

If we don’t do anything to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the sea level could rise nearly two and a half meters at minimum by 2300. In the worst case, that could be more than ten meters.

In the best case scenario, where we invest heavily in renewables, nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage by 2070, we might still have to deal with a sea level nearly a meter higher than it is now. Due to uncertainties in the contribution from glaciers and ice sheets, this could be closer to three meters.

If the oceans are going to rise no matter what we do, why bother doing anything? For one thing, a rise of one meter is much better than ten meters. In addition, if we can aggressively cut carbon dioxide emissions, the sea level rise will happen slower—giving us more time to adapt.

Promoted Comments

There have been a number of posts so far regarding modeling evidencing a number of misconceptions. Rather than address any of the erroneous posts directly or elaboate on Captainpuke's posts I will instead link to a quite good Ars article from a couple of years ago which discusses the topic as well as I've ever seen for a general audience. I highly recommend it:

210 Reader Comments

You even have the gall to suggest that we need to keep fossil fuel subsidies up while defending the power of the market to price fuels efficiently.

I have "the gall" to recognize that if the subsidies are removed, fuel prices will rise, harming everyone who uses fuel and the economy as a whole. Are you unaware that increasing energy prices adds friction to the economy at almost every level?

But do you agree that there is at least a possibility that the long-term harms of continuing to subsidize fossil fuels as we do now might be greater than the harms induced by weaning us off of those subsidies?

You even have the gall to suggest that we need to keep fossil fuel subsidies up while defending the power of the market to price fuels efficiently.

I have "the gall" to recognize that if the subsidies are removed, fuel prices will rise, harming everyone who uses fuel and the economy as a whole. Are you unaware that increasing energy prices adds friction to the economy at almost every level?

But do you agree that there is at least a possibility that the long-term harms of continuing to subsidize fossil fuels as we do now might be greater than the harms induced by weaning us off of those subsidies?

ai33806 wrote:

Let's help the poor by charging them more for everything! While were at it, let's expand government bureaucracy, that should help!

The recent trend toward letting big businesses run freer, with less government bureaucracy, certainly doesn't seem to have helped the poor.

ai33806 wrote:

By the way, as far as helping those "abroad", we'll be in a much better position to do that once we're back to having a strong economy again.

The premise which you're ignoring is that helping people, whether here or abroad, actually leads to a stronger (world) economy. That's why modern nations have stuff like public education systems and unemployment insurance and (horrors!) Social Security.

Kalessin responded to the other points much as I would have, so I'll just respond to this one:

Quote:

I didn't say people deserve backlash just for making emotional pleas. Anyone who says 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!' should not be making policy decisions, and will never convince me to do anything.

That's an incredibly stupid heuristic you've got there. What did you say when the polio vaccine was being introduced?

I wasn't alive when the polio vaccine was introduced. If someone can't make their argument without an appeal to emotion, they can't make their argument, period. I don't believe in picking and choosing when logical fallacies are acceptable in argumentation, because that would be incredibly stupid.

Kalessin responded to the other points much as I would have, so I'll just respond to this one:

Quote:

I didn't say people deserve backlash just for making emotional pleas. Anyone who says 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!' should not be making policy decisions, and will never convince me to do anything.

That's an incredibly stupid heuristic you've got there. What did you say when the polio vaccine was being introduced?

I wasn't alive when the polio vaccine was introduced. If someone can't make their argument without an appeal to emotion, they can't make their argument, period. I don't believe in picking and choosing when logical fallacies are acceptable in argumentation, because that would be incredibly stupid.

You should.

A: "Let's burn all the comic books because THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

vs.

B: "We have several compelling reasons to believe that what we're doing to the environment risks changes to our world that would have severe consequences to life on earth as we know it within the next several human generations. For the sake of the benefit of our species, we humbly suggest that someone ought to THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

If someone can't make their argument without an appeal to emotion, they can't make their argument, period.

I'm sorry, are you saying that emotion should never have a place in setting social policies? What the fuck do you think society even is? It is not a collection of emotionless robots, it's a collection of people. Emotion is a key element in forming and maintaining societies. When discussing the best way forward for society, there are inherent value and emotional judgments involved. The reason polio was vigorously eliminated in most of the world is not because people made purely rational, emotion-free, cost-benefit analysis arguments about the at large world being better off without it, it was carried out because people didn't want themselves or their loved ones to suffer from the disease. It was because people put an emotional value on people. It was a humanitarian effort on an enormous scale, one that's right on the cusp of total success today despite remnant populations that present steep challenges to complete eradicaton. That's an incredibly human endeavor and it should give you an emotional reaction. If you intentionally ignore the humanitarian aspect of eradicating polio or averting climatic disaster, what kind of human being do you think you're modeling as the ideal? It's not anything like the real world and it's not likely to be productive in the real world. Besides which...

Quote:

I don't believe in picking and choosing when logical fallacies are acceptable in argumentation, because that would be incredibly stupid.

Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy when it's used as a substitute for evidence in an argument, not when ample evidence has been presented. Al Gore didn't argue that climate change was real because THINK OF THE CHILDREN! That would have been a fallacy. He argued that it was real based on science, described the impacts based on science, and said we should do something about it because of those science-illuminated impacts it will have on our children. That's not a fallacy. Learn the difference before you get dismissive.

If someone can't make their argument without an appeal to emotion, they can't make their argument, period.

I'm sorry, are you saying that emotion should never have a place in setting social policies? What the fuck do you think society even is? It is not a collection of emotionless robots, it's a collection of people. Emotion is a key element in forming and maintaining societies. When discussing the best way forward for society, there are inherent value and emotional judgments involved. The reason polio was vigorously eliminated in most of the world is not because people made purely rational, emotion-free, cost-benefit analysis arguments about the at large world being better off without it, it was carried out because people didn't want themselves or their loved ones to suffer from the disease. It was because people put an emotional value on people. It was a humanitarian effort on an enormous scale, one that's right on the cusp of total success today despite remnant populations that present steep challenges to complete eradicaton. That's an incredibly human endeavor and it should give you an emotional reaction. If you intentionally ignore the humanitarian aspect of eradicating polio or averting climatic disaster, what kind of human being do you think you're modeling as the ideal? It's not anything like the real world and it's not likely to be productive in the real world. Besides which...

Quote:

I don't believe in picking and choosing when logical fallacies are acceptable in argumentation, because that would be incredibly stupid.

Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy when it's used as a substitute for evidence in an argument, not when ample evidence has been presented. Al Gore didn't argue that climate change was real because THINK OF THE CHILDREN! That would have been a fallacy. He argued that it was real based on science, described the impacts based on science, and said we should do something about it because of those science-illuminated impacts it will have on our children. That's not a fallacy. Learn the difference before you get dismissive.

Maybe you should read what I said before you get dismissive. If an argument requires an appeal to emotion, it is not a valid argument, right? If you CANNOT make your argument without an appeal to emotion, then you don't have an argument free of logical fallacy.

I know the difference and chose my words carefully. We have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, you believe there's no logical fallacy because Gore's arguments aren't based on emotion, I say that without the appeal to emotion he's not making the same argument. In short, I believe the exaggerations/implications of the film overshadow the otherwise good scientific argumentation.

Putting 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN' in all caps made me think of a hysterical idiot, not someone with well thought out ideas. I never said we should all be emotionless, but do believe we should keep our argumentation free from appeals to emotion. You don't have to scream 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN' to get people to agree to things, people have emotions, hearing the facts about polio is enough. It seems that my interpretation of the tone of all-caps may have been confusing. I haven't encountered people who can make rational arguments while screaming emotional appeals, in my experience the people screaming emotional appeals are subject to their emotions in their entire thought process. Including an emotional plea in argumentation does not itself make the argument fallacious, but I'm inclined to listen to and respect people who can make their arguments without doing so. That's why, for people like me, Gore's film did a disservice to climate science on the whole.

Kalessin responded to the other points much as I would have, so I'll just respond to this one:

Quote:

I didn't say people deserve backlash just for making emotional pleas. Anyone who says 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!' should not be making policy decisions, and will never convince me to do anything.

That's an incredibly stupid heuristic you've got there. What did you say when the polio vaccine was being introduced?

I wasn't alive when the polio vaccine was introduced. If someone can't make their argument without an appeal to emotion, they can't make their argument, period. I don't believe in picking and choosing when logical fallacies are acceptable in argumentation, because that would be incredibly stupid.

You should.

A: "Let's burn all the comic books because THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

vs.

B: "We have several compelling reasons to believe that what we're doing to the environment risks changes to our world that would have severe consequences to life on earth as we know it within the next several human generations. For the sake of the benefit of our species, we humbly suggest that someone ought to THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

I roll my eyes at A; I pay attention to B. They are not the same.

They are not the same, the latter is an example of an argument that could be made without an appeal to emotion. Additionally, what you want is for people to think about children? That won't get anything done. What you want is for people to take some sort of action on the children's behalf.

I also concede that the all-caps may have added confusion as to me it indicates screaming, and as I stated in my response to Wheels, I have not encountered someone who can scream emotional pleas while also making a reasonable argument.

Maybe you should read what I said before you get dismissive. If an argument requires an appeal to emotion, it is not a valid argument, right?

No. Not universally. Using emotional appeals in an argument that doesn't involve emotional issues as part of its structure is a fallacy. Using emotional appeals as part of an argument that is inherently about emotions and emotional responses is not necessarily a fallacy; there are appropriate situations in which discussing and using emotional factors is perfectly valid.

Quote:

In short, I believe the exaggerations/implications of the film overshadow the otherwise good scientific argumentation.

You haven't even identified any "exaggerations/implications of the film" that stand up to scrutiny, much less those that "require an appeal to emotion." The only one that requires an appeal to emotion is the argument that we need to deal with this problem. He did not use emotion to artificially magnify some weak evidence and convince people that the problem exists and will impact the world in XYZ ways. The science made that case. If he had simply said "Global warming is happening because I'm scared for THE CHILDREN! And that's why you should believe it!" that would be what you're talking about. That's not what he did. The emotional appeals just put the problem in a policy context; we don't want these impacts because they'll increase suffering and tragedies, harm the economy we depend on for prosperity, decrease the quality of life for us and the people we care about, and degrade the natural wonders of our planet so that we won't be able to enjoy them in the future. As a society we have to deal with this as a humanitarian issue and that includes talking about the human toll of ignoring the problem.It's no different than initiating an effort to eliminate polio or take tetraethyl lead out of gasoline; these things harm people and we need policy solutions to prevent that harm.

Quote:

I never said we should all be emotionless, but do believe we should keep our argumentation free from appeals to emotion.

That's not an inappropriate appeal to emotion because that's how all policy decisions on subjects of future harm are ultimate made. You cannot recommend a policy decision about this kind of thing unless you are making some kind of emotional appeal, either to fairness or quality of life for people or what have you. Even the people opposed to it are making emotional appeals because they think the proposed solutions will cause more suffering than the perceived problem. Those are inherently moral and emotional questions and it doesn't make sense to say that emotional appeals are inappropriate. There is no way to separate emotions and humanitarian values from this discussion and you're wrong to fault Gore for his treatment of the emotional impact of climate change.

Quote:

Including an emotional plea in argumentation does not itself make the argument fallacious, but I'm inclined to listen to and respect people who can make their arguments without doing so.

Maybe you should read what I said before you get dismissive. If an argument requires an appeal to emotion, it is not a valid argument, right?

No. Not universally. Using emotional appeals in an argument that doesn't involve emotional issues as part of its structure is a fallacy. Using emotional appeals as part of an argument that is inherently about emotions and emotional responses is not necessarily a fallacy; there are appropriate situations in which discussing and using emotional factors is perfectly valid.

That makes no sense. An appeal to emotion is just as invalid in an argument about emotions as it is in an argument about anything else. If you're talking about simply discussing emotions, you're not talking about making logical arguments.

Quote:

You haven't even identified any "exaggerations/implications of the film" that stand up to scrutiny, much less those that "require an appeal to emotion."

Yes I have. The movie implies hurricane Katrina was a result of global warming, unsupported, and clear appeal to emotion. Beyond that, I'm not going to re-watch it, but I recall the sea-level rise claim was bloated in the film, and there was that polar bear death nonsense. The intent of the film was clearly to get people concerned. Many people overlook its faults because it 'got the message out' (I think 'ends justify means' thinking can have terrible consequences), but many other people viewed the faults of the film as manipulation. I don't particularly care to further argue about the faults of the film, you're in the first group of people and I'm in the second group.

Quote:

That's not an inappropriate appeal to emotion because that's how all policy decisions on subjects of future harm are ultimate made. You cannot recommend a policy decision about this kind of thing unless you are making some kind of emotional appeal, either to fairness or quality of life for people or what have you. Even the people opposed to it are making emotional appeals because they think the proposed solutions will cause more suffering than the perceived problem. Those are inherently moral and emotional questions and it doesn't make sense to say that emotional appeals are inappropriate. There is no way to separate emotions and humanitarian values from this discussion and you're wrong to fault Gore for his treatment of the emotional impact of climate change.

Since people do it, it's not inappropriate? I already said that I don't think people need to be emotionless, and I stand by my preference for argumentation free from emotional pleas. I also clarified my initial comment regarding 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN' because of the potential confusion in tone. Now you seem to be fixating on the ambiguity of what constitutes an emotional appeal. I disagree with your assertion.

I don't see either of us making headway here, we both think each other wrong at some fundamental level, I trust that you're likely a more reasonable person than you seem at times on this forum, and bid you a good weekend.

Yes I have. The movie implies hurricane Katrina was a result of global warming, unsupported, and clear appeal to emotion.

A misinterpretation does not mean Gore implied it. I think you'll find my framework (science explained, impacts made clear with emotional appeal to recent experience) is a better explanation for the scene than yours (science explained, then impact ascribed to recent experience).

Quote:

Beyond that, I'm not going to re-watch it, but I recall the sea-level rise claim was bloated in the film, and there was that polar bear death nonsense.

Nope, the sea-level rise was accurate. The polar bears were not nonsense.

Quote:

The intent of the film was clearly to get people concerned. Many people overlook its faults because it 'got the message out' (I think 'ends justify means' thinking can have terrible consequences), but many other people viewed the faults of the film as manipulation. I don't particularly care to further argue about the faults of the film, you're in the first group of people and I'm in the second group.

I'm not overlooking the faults, I'm explaining why they're not the faults people think they are. You are convinced that these faults are genuine, but for the most part they're not. You haven't highlighted any real faults, like lies, mistakes, or distortions that can be demonstrated clearly. Believe it or not, popular opinion can be wrong. I'm not interested in being an ideological apologist, I want people to discuss a topic honestly. Letting misconceptions spread to the point that people like you blame Gore for shit that isn't his fault and lay the failure of serious action to address climate change on the shoulders of the very people who reacted to it the most responsibly and carefully is something that pushes my buttons.

Quote:

Since people do it, it's not inappropriate?

No, it's appropriate in certain contexts and setting policy decisions with this kind of widespread humanitarian concern is one of those contexts. Do we want people around the world (including us) to suffer unnecessarily when we have the power to do something about it and make things better? We have this issue which the science tells us will cause enormous problems and increase human suffering because of the way we do things right now. Any question of policy about this issue is necessarily going to appeal to emotions, a sense of fairness, humanitarianism, and responsibility for each other and our descendants. That is an emotional discussion not because people feel strongly about it, but because all those things are emotional imperatives. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate in An Inconvenient Truth where Gore highlights these questions and suggests we take action. He didn't even say which course to take, as long as it deals with the problem. It's the same as the burning house analogy. We see this problem, we see what will happen if we do nothing, and we see that we can do something. Gore argued that we should do something. That is not being dishonest, fallacious, or unduly manipulative, and certainly not being "politically charged." I really don't see how you can characterize it that way without coming at it from a pre-existing bias that colors your interpretation.

When my well-respected neighbour of long acquaintance calls up and tells me that my house is on fire, I don't dismiss his warning because I suspect he votes for the 'wrong' political party -- not even under a pretence of scholarly debate about whether his measurements are sufficiently precise, and might be explained by a defect in his spectacles. Once he's demolished my objection that he's mistaken my barbecue for a conflagration, I don't waste time arguing whether the roof can be expected to collapse in 30 minutes or not for 40. If he hollers at me to GET THE KIDS OUT NOW, or they're liable to come to grave harm, I get my ass in gear -- I don't object that he's appealing to my emotions.

Kyle Niemeyer / Kyle is a science writer for Ars Technica. He is a postdoctoral scholar at Oregon State University and has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Case Western Reserve University. Kyle's research focuses on combustion modeling.